The issue of whether or not a voting machine can be hacked is rather important.
Diebold (and other) voting machines use XP, last I heard. That's about the most hacked/compromised OS ever made. So yeah, it matters, and no, I won't go die.
# Private: This new "identity ecosystem" protects your privacy. Credentials share only the amount of personal information necessary for the transaction. You control what personal information is released, and can ensure that your data is not centralized among service providers.
Hm. I don't see any mention of how you can control access by law enforcement. But if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of... right?
# Voluntary: The identity ecosystem is voluntary. You will still be able to surf the Web, write a blog, participate in an online discussion, and post comments to a wiki anonymously or using a pseudonym. You would choose when to use your trusted ID. When you want stronger identity protection, you use your credential, enabling higher levels of trust and security.
Social Security Numbers are entirely voluntary. Heh heh. Try getting a job, getting health insurance, or opening a bank account without one. But you don't really have to do any of those things, right?
Sigh. Yeah, let's just use people's Facebook identity as their trusted ID. I can't think of a single reason why that might not be a superb idea.
P.S. Oh, hey! Let's also let the voting machines be designed by the private sector, in closed source on Windows. That can't possibly be a problem, right?
I already sent all my money there, so I don't have any more to send... yet. But once I get the pay-out from the deceased Nigerian Finance Minister's will, I'll be able to send plenty more. Should be any day now.
Income tax: No matter how much you earn, you always pay the same ratio of your total earnings as tax (if it's applied fairly, ie. everybody pays a flat rate on all earnings, with no loopholes to hide your earnings).
But that's not at all how it works. There are loopholes like crazy. Many rich people pay almost no income tax, while people near the poverty line pay a lot of their desperately-needed cash to taxes.
Sales tax: The less you earn, the higher proportion of tax you're required to pay just to go about the task of staying alive (food, drink, clothing, fuel, etc.), and conversely, the more you earn, the less you pay proportionally, making it even easier to save more money which you can use to increase your future earnings even further.
Answered in my post above: just have one little loophole: no sales tax on food, clothing, and maybe shelter. I.e. have sales tax only on discretionary expenditures. If there were no income tax, then sales taxes would be relatively high. If a rich person had to pay a 20% tax on their purchase of a boat, then they are indeed helping out a lot, while a poor person who doesn't buy boats and spare TVs and necklaces, etc. isn't paying any tax.
Sales tax is by no means tilted against the poor: not if it is done like Pennsylvania, for example. In PA, there is no sales tax on food or clothing.
So think of the possibilities: you don't get taxed when you buy the stuff you really need to survive, but when you go buying trinkets and fun stuff, you pay a tax. That then is a tax on the rich, the foolish, and the wasteful much more than on the poor.
An income tax is a tax on the poor much more than on the rich, because the rich find ways to pay very little taxes, while the poor pay a large chunk of their income to taxes. Mind you, I am using "poor" to mean more than the US Federal definition of poverty... but that definition is less than $22K for a family of four. (Try supporting a spouse and two kids in the U.S. on $30K a year, and tell me that's not poverty... but you will be paying a bunch of income taxes.)
Income tax is an effective punishment, because it ends up being a discouragement. A lot of people give up on small businesses because the taxes (and the health insurance rates) are just extraordinarily high. They certainly feel like they're being punished for trying to make money. If those individuals only got taxed on the expenditures they made for themselves, they would be much more free to pursue their businesses.
It's funny how many people point to their monitor and call it their computer. I can imagine a lot of people smash up their monitor expecting that it will result in their getting a new computer.
What I'd really like to know is how many people do that; get a replacement monitor; and say, "Wow, this new computer is so much faster!"
...and don't forget that information which is collected is archived (at least now it is, since TB cost practically nothing).
So even if info actually is only used for its intended purpose now, that doesn't mean it can't be used for all kinds of shenanigans later on.
n.b.: This applies to all the info. nerds seem so willing to give to Google as well. Even if they actually aren't evil now, are you sure they never will be?
It is welcome that you took this forward action to pervert critical contanimation of your most personal datas by submitting to computerscan with fantastic quick.
Please be noted that Bank of Armerca is not changed to Russia. Is only important and extremely trusted vender who is making home inside of beautiful Mother Russia. This vender is to be deeply trusted by you very much and often. Examine the emails addressing on this emails and be aware that it comes from Bank of Armerca. Also to see the Bank of Armerca logo is on this emails, so you know it is very trust.
Greetings,
Ivan Petrovitch Bank of Armerca President snerksky772@hotmail.com
The letters from Chase and Citi, both say effectively: "your data was stolen, here's what you should do to protect your data." They then go into a litany of minor data hygiene practices, failing to point out they themselves did not vet their vendor's security practices. There is no claim of culpability for bad security policy nor any indication that they will try to do better in the future. In other words, no reason why you should trust them with your data (and this response is sadly commonplace).
Except that this sets a strong precedent for "guilty until proven innocent."
Once you go down the path you outline, then what's to stop police from walking through a crowd of people saying "someone here is the person we're looking for, so all of you have to be scanned." You're not *required* to submit, but the few people who do have the nerve to refuse do then get hauled off for the lengthy process.
There is a difference between what you have to give and what police are allowed to take (e.g., your fingerprints from anything you touch in their presence).
Slashdot Mirror
The issue of whether or not a voting machine can be hacked is rather important.
Diebold (and other) voting machines use XP, last I heard. That's about the most hacked/compromised OS ever made. So yeah, it matters, and no, I won't go die.
# Private: This new "identity ecosystem" protects your privacy. Credentials share only the amount of personal information necessary for the transaction. You control what personal information is released, and can ensure that your data is not centralized among service providers.
Hm. I don't see any mention of how you can control access by law enforcement. But if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of... right?
# Voluntary: The identity ecosystem is voluntary. You will still be able to surf the Web, write a blog, participate in an online discussion, and post comments to a wiki anonymously or using a pseudonym. You would choose when to use your trusted ID. When you want stronger identity protection, you use your credential, enabling higher levels of trust and security.
Social Security Numbers are entirely voluntary. Heh heh.
Try getting a job, getting health insurance, or opening a bank account without one. But you don't really have to do any of those things, right?
Government and corporations... that's everyone who matters, isn't it?
Sorry, Citizen. Your U.S. IIN has accessed it's limit of porn for today.
Please wait until tomorrow to continue whatever you were doing.
Sigh. Yeah, let's just use people's Facebook identity as their trusted ID.
I can't think of a single reason why that might not be a superb idea.
P.S. Oh, hey! Let's also let the voting machines be designed by the private sector, in closed source on Windows. That can't possibly be a problem, right?
I already sent all my money there, so I don't have any more to send... yet.
But once I get the pay-out from the deceased Nigerian Finance Minister's will, I'll be able to send plenty more.
Should be any day now.
Income tax: No matter how much you earn, you always pay the same ratio of your total earnings as tax (if it's applied fairly, ie. everybody pays a flat rate on all earnings, with no loopholes to hide your earnings).
But that's not at all how it works. There are loopholes like crazy. Many rich people pay almost no income tax, while people near the poverty line pay a lot of their desperately-needed cash to taxes.
Sales tax: The less you earn, the higher proportion of tax you're required to pay just to go about the task of staying alive (food, drink, clothing, fuel, etc.), and conversely, the more you earn, the less you pay proportionally, making it even easier to save more money which you can use to increase your future earnings even further.
Answered in my post above: just have one little loophole: no sales tax on food, clothing, and maybe shelter. I.e. have sales tax only on discretionary expenditures. If there were no income tax, then sales taxes would be relatively high. If a rich person had to pay a 20% tax on their purchase of a boat, then they are indeed helping out a lot, while a poor person who doesn't buy boats and spare TVs and necklaces, etc. isn't paying any tax.
Sales tax is by no means tilted against the poor: not if it is done like Pennsylvania, for example. In PA, there is no sales tax on food or clothing.
So think of the possibilities: you don't get taxed when you buy the stuff you really need to survive, but when you go buying trinkets and fun stuff, you pay a tax. That then is a tax on the rich, the foolish, and the wasteful much more than on the poor.
An income tax is a tax on the poor much more than on the rich, because the rich find ways to pay very little taxes, while the poor pay a large chunk of their income to taxes. Mind you, I am using "poor" to mean more than the US Federal definition of poverty... but that definition is less than $22K for a family of four. (Try supporting a spouse and two kids in the U.S. on $30K a year, and tell me that's not poverty... but you will be paying a bunch of income taxes.)
Income tax is an effective punishment, because it ends up being a discouragement. A lot of people give up on small businesses because the taxes (and the health insurance rates) are just extraordinarily high. They certainly feel like they're being punished for trying to make money. If those individuals only got taxed on the expenditures they made for themselves, they would be much more free to pursue their businesses.
Income tax: punish people for making money (unless they can hide it by pretending like they lost money).
Sales tax: punish people for spending money, particularly on junk they don't need.
Which one sounds more sensible?
In a big bureaucracy, people who are prioritized within the bureaucracy are prioritized.
ftfy
It's funny how many people point to their monitor and call it their computer. I can imagine a lot of people smash up their monitor expecting that it will result in their getting a new computer.
What I'd really like to know is how many people do that; get a replacement monitor; and say, "Wow, this new computer is so much faster!"
...and don't forget that information which is collected is archived (at least now it is, since TB cost practically nothing).
So even if info actually is only used for its intended purpose now, that doesn't mean it can't be used for all kinds of shenanigans later on.
n.b.: This applies to all the info. nerds seem so willing to give to Google as well. Even if they actually aren't evil now, are you sure they never will be?
Beloved,
It is welcome that you took this forward action to pervert critical contanimation of your most personal datas by submitting to computerscan with fantastic quick.
Please be noted that Bank of Armerca is not changed to Russia. Is only important and extremely trusted vender who is making home inside of beautiful Mother Russia. This vender is to be deeply trusted by you very much and often. Examine the emails addressing on this emails and be aware that it comes from Bank of Armerca. Also to see the Bank of Armerca logo is on this emails, so you know it is very trust.
Greetings,
Ivan Petrovitch
Bank of Armerca President
snerksky772@hotmail.com
The letters from Chase and Citi, both say effectively: "your data was stolen, here's what you should do to protect your data." They then go into a litany of minor data hygiene practices, failing to point out they themselves did not vet their vendor's security practices. There is no claim of culpability for bad security policy nor any indication that they will try to do better in the future. In other words, no reason why you should trust them with your data (and this response is sadly commonplace).
Still kinda miss the Superconducting Super Collider . Wonder if it could have produced results sooner.
I have 10 moderator points. Is there any way I can moderate all these stories down? And is there a special "just cut it out already" tag for today?
Young nerds the world over are bookmarking this article for future reference.
In other news, a new study shows that 6+-hour gaming sessions greatly enhance muscle tone and social integration.
How much longer until OMFG, NFW, WTF, GTFO, and all the other fun uses of F get in there?
So you're saying Apple is amateurish and Microsoft is secure? Are you sure you thought that through?
And you don't think that some crappy mp3s of Michael Jackson are worth every penny that?!?
How do you spell elite? Is it: (0~\/1(7?
the Internet has devalued content nearly to the point where the business reason to create it is disappearing
...or maybe we're just moving to an open content model (i.e., like FOSS). After all, information does want to be free.
Except that this sets a strong precedent for "guilty until proven innocent."
Once you go down the path you outline, then what's to stop police from walking through a crowd of people saying "someone here is the person we're looking for, so all of you have to be scanned." You're not *required* to submit, but the few people who do have the nerve to refuse do then get hauled off for the lengthy process.
There is a difference between what you have to give and what police are allowed to take (e.g., your fingerprints from anything you touch in their presence).
If you have fingerprints, a voice, an iris, or "more," why then you qualify!